Quote:
Originally Posted by E93
I guess we disagree. People pay more for higher grades in general because they have more appeal. When the standards grading companies use do not reflect the appeal of specific cards, people ignore opinion of the grading company and bid according to the appeal of the card. Case in point: 2 Planks.
"Grading is only designed to objectively point out hidden flaws in a card. "
If this were true, the grading scale would not need to be hierarchical with greater value ascribed to higher grades.
JimB
|
I'm not sure we have a disagreement, as much as a misunderstanding. What people want to pay for certain cards is subjective. Where a grading company puts a card on a scale of heavy flaws to no flaws is designed to be objective, based on the accepted industry standards of what it means for a card to be VG or higher.
We almost never get into these disputes over cards graded higher than VG, because the difference in objective flaws between a 4 and a 10 are generally minor and easy to decipher. Where these discussions hit pay dirt is where you have a Minty looking 1 and a chewed up 1. How can they both be 1s?! Well, the point isn't that they're both 1s, the point is that the Minty looking 1 has some major flaw that you had better slow down to check out.